When Chess gets "Solved"...

s7silver: while that is the number of atoms in the observable universe.  However, the observable universe is only a tiny fraction of the entire universe, and the original "chess positions > atoms" statement had no mention of the observable universe.

to Zug:

first of all, i never claimed to cite facts, i said i believe that to be true which directly implies that No, i didn't do my homework and No, i don't know for a fact if I am right or wrong.  i simply do think, in the absence of other facts, that there are not more chess positions than atoms in the univese.  so thanks for trying to point out mistakes, you've been very helpful.

second, i looked at your link and, though it doesn't include much detail, it looks like the calculation (of 10^120) does not calculate all possible chess positions, it calculates possible chess games.  this means that if there are 2 identical positions reached by two different strings of moves, the calculation would count each position separately (inflating the numbers).  again, not much detail, but it looks like there's a considerable amount of double counting in your calculation.

third, and this is my main point, i don't think you'll find one single credible scientist that says that anyone anywhere knows how many atoms there are in the universe.  any number that you assumes represents every atom in the universe is so full of speculation as to be absurd and an idiotic placeholder making this an absurd and idiotic argument.  there is no possible way anyone can know how many atoms are in the universe which is why i believe (strongly) that there are more atoms in the universe than possible chess positions.  (let's not even get into the fact that your claculation is for the observable universe and the observable universe is expanding exponentially every day)

http://www.geocities.com/explorer127pl/szachy.html

We might not know the number of atoms in the universe but here's interesting info about number of board positions

i know everyone did their homework and already read the cite posted by moonwalker, but just in case, i'll summarize:

number of possible chess games:       10^134

number of possible chess positions:    10^40

There is no specific right move, their are endless right moves, sacrafices i.e. : there are billions of right moves, it all depends on the player, style and strategy. every move you are at risk for blundering against an unforseen play. that is what makes chess so great! you have to outsmart your oppenent, and there is never going to be a computer (or at least in our lifetime) that will be able to handle that type of data.

Well, I hope I won't be around when chess gets solved.

If chess was solved (and it certainly can be solved, in theory) then the trouble would arise from opening theory becoming so exhaustive that whoever took the trouble could reach a winning position every time.

On the other hand, to take openings meaningfully into that extended stage requires a fair level of understanding of the significances of moves anyway, so I doubt it would impact too much on the games of most of the players here.

And it's also, for the record, certainly possible for there to be more possibilities of given events arising from a given position than there any given number, including the number describing the total number of atoms in the observable universe. It definitely wouldn't make the universe 'explode'.

What's more, saying things like 'because there are more positions than atoms in the universe, such a solution wouldn't fit on earth' is just ludicrous. A solution doesn't literally have to describe every position. Such a solution would be a more complicated (less elegant) version of πr^2, which describes any number of different circles, but doesn't need to describe each one individidually, and in turn.

I agree; all you'd have to do is make an imperfect move against an opponent who memorized any form of "perfect game," which is ridiculous if you think about it. It may give you a disadvantage, you'll still probably win since your opponent probably spent all of their time memorizing the "perfect game," and don't actually know anything else about chess.

Or, you could just not play people who memorized it. The vast majority won't.

I say you cant solve chess because chess is a game that represents life in a way. and in life there is nothing perfect so how would you make chess perfect. Also when your playing chess and both you and your oppenent are making the best move in that position, at the end of the game there might be a stalemate or a draw. Well besides all this want humans make to super comuters and have them play chess against each other and see what happens.

I say you cant solve chess because chess is a game that represents life in a way. and in life there is nothing perfect so how would you make chess perfect. Also when your playing chess and both you and your oppenent are making the best move in that position, at the end of the game there might be a stalemate or a draw. Well besides all this want humans make to super comuters and have them play chess against each other and see what happens.

I'm still waiting for tic tac toe to get solved.

lol

How can we know that there are more chess positions than atoms in the universe if scientists don't even know how big the universe is?

human brain will figure it out before computers. the average human uses 15% of their brain. geniuses like einstein used 20-25%. some day someone using 50% will revolutionize the world including chess.

 Not true, read up about a number called a googolplex.

 Not true either, computers will solve it long before people will be able to.  Chess is 'like' life as someone else stated but it's not exactly the same, chess is maths, computers are good at maths!

ok

Who knows how big the universe is?

do computers know about positional play now? There was a book I read that said that computers don't understand chess strategy, but it was published in 1997.

That was a nice summary. Right now i have to write a summary of "1984" by orwell, any idea how to get it that short? (IB-stuff)